Medpage seems
committed to being
another liberal
propaganda outlet
rather than being a
medical site..

Greg Haitz, DC, CSCS

01/18/13

Is this the
physician's
responsibility? How
many physicians know
gun safety and how
to handle a firearm.
Should physicians
take firearms
training and gun
safety courses? How
many physicians know
their way around a
gun? What about the
other dangers in the
home such as RX
medication, knives,
cleaning agents, ice
picks, second story
windows, etc. More
children die per
year from home
accidents that gun
accidents. I think
this is a knee-jerk
political issue and
really has no place
in medical
discussion. If you
have a patient on
Prozac (which is
know to increase
suicide risk and
violent behavior),
are you going to ask
if they have a gun
in the home? If
they do, what are
you prepared to do
about it?.

william ray PhD

01/18/13

I'm more than a little disappointed that these MDs have jumped on the "growing problem" bandwagon,
when the data remains unequivocal that firearms related deaths have been on a steady decline for
decades.
I'm also curious whether they're planning on also discussing the possible _costs_ in human lives incurred
by "safer storage", or whether they're happy to wash their hands of those lives simply because they have
no coherent lobby..

Norman M Canter MD

01/18/13

Years ago..as a
surgical resident at
Bellevue..gunshot
cases had fewer
bullet wounds
because
most were caused by
revolvers..limited
to 5 or 6 rounds.
Now..pistols carry
12-13 rounds are
much easier to aim
and hit what is
being aimed at...the
pistol is more
deadly than the
revolver.Pistols..also
carry ammunition
that has a greater
muzzle
velocity..usually.
If civilian access
were limited to
revolvers..which are
adequate for home
and/or personal
protection..fewer
lethal injuries
would be inflicted
and fewer people
could be injured at
one time. Rifles and
shotguns ..single
shot up to 10 rounds
and bolt or
otherwise manually
operated are
adequate for
hunting..target
practice..and home
protection..but not
suitable for mass
destruction.
Limiting civilian
ownership to these
weapons would go a
long way toward
protecting the
public. The Second
Amendment was
written when single
shot flintlock
weapons were all
that was
available... it is
difficult to imagine
that The Founding
Fathers could have
imagined a change in
weapons so
revolutionary as
they exist
today...with such
extraordinary
implications..

npp

01/18/13

Perhaps when buying a gun it should be more like getting a drivers
license and a mandatory quiz which includes issues about gun
storage and safety should be taken purchase. The quiz could have
random questions ie you could not study and copy a friends quiz. At
least people might take it more seriously. The person buying the
gun should also have a current first aid certificate which needs to
be updated every 2 years. This would increase the knowledge about
guns and safety to the source ie the buyer. You don't pass the quiz
you can't buy a gun..

Norman M Canter MD

01/18/13

In regard to the
comment by Ken
K.....slander is no
substitute for logic
and a recounting of
experience..

joseph de luca

01/18/13

So what does asking about firearms have to do with whether my cardiologist is giving me advice
on improving my cardiac health. The same for my asthma physician or my primary physician.
The problem is, as I see it, if the doctor is pro-firearms that could frighten "liberal" anti-gun
folk away. And if he's anti-gun, watch how quickly his pro-firearms people who hunt and/or
have been assaulted or lost family members to random violence switch to another MD. Besides a
patient's eating habits, exercise and medication what else are MD's going to talk about sexual
behaviour, driving safety, etc.? Last I discussed sex with an MD she was really puritanical and
very opposed to birth control. Of course, that was 60 years ago when I was 13 but the point is -
stick to your specialty. And leave driving safey, sexual behaviour, guns and hunting safety to the
experts..

tim castricone

01/18/13

I read Medpage for news and information. Please stop the politics..

Molly_RN

01/18/13

Those who don't understand that Dr. Canter is correct and feel this
is politics, don't know much about Emergency Departments and ICU's
where we take care of the victims of guns..

Peter Hughes, MD

01/18/13

I don't know why nobody - especially politicians - has been brave
enough to attack the REAL reason for gun violence. These horrible
crimes are not committed by normal, law abiding citizens, but by
individuals who have mental health problems. Yet nobody has
advocated for mental health awareness and better availability to
mental health workers. Physicians should be in the business of
MEDICINE - the office is not the place for promoting liberal
political idealism. Remember that guns are not the problem, they
are just an easy tool used by sick individuals. If guns were not
available, they would surely use something else instead..

betty cooper-ritchey

01/18/13

As a Physician Assistant with a lot of ER experience, I have been
involved with several table top exercises of mass casualties. It
seems to me that the real key to the tragedies of late, have much
more to do
with the lack of mental health availability for those with sub-
standard incomes, than about guns. It is unfortunate but true that
many of these folks simply can't afford their medications, refuse to
take them due to side effects, self-medicate themselves, and
inability to access mental health facilities than about guns. I
feel strongly that they should ban the use of these multiple
magazines, etc. except for the military and law enforcement. No one
needs a magazine with a hundred shot capability. I do not support
taking guns away from the public, but there are some with mental
health issues who should not be placed in a situation where auto-
matic weapons are available. This young man who shot all those att
the school, shows how parental responsibility is lacking. There
should never have been unlocked guns in his house EVER. That
responsibility lies with the mother (or parents). I support most of
what the President has outlined in his speech about guns. We as
practitioners should have the freedom to inquire about gun safety in
the home of our patients without fear of reprisal. We need to be
careful about doing a better job of knowing our patients and dealing
with issues like this before not after the fact..

Pat H, RN

01/18/13

This is hogwash. Have these doctors ever counseled about mental
illness treatment or violent video games?
All of the mass shootings that have sparked this controversy have
parents to blame. Adam Lanza? Where was his dad (and brother)
that lived only an hour away but never saw him for 4 years? His
mom whose main past time was a local bar certainly not the best
role model. He should have been in treatment long before the
shooting, and since she admittedly could not control him any longer
(per her words), her guns should have been gone. Her brother is a
police chief - who should have stepped in. Society was failed by
these people, not guns.
The Joker in Colorado? Not working, supported by parents who
afforded him the means to buy a gun but did not demand he be
treated. VA Tech shooter's parents were warned by his roommate but
did nothing, again no job but provided with money to buy weapons.
The Columbine kids looked and acted crazy - parents knew nothing.
Impossible. The kid who shot Gabby Giffords, again no job, lived
with parents and had a sacrificial alter in the back yard. No
treatment for him either.
We need to blame the parents who failed to even try. Ms. Lanza had
$300,000 in child support per year, could have and should have
afforded treatment, not a money problem.
Schziophrenia occurs about the age of these shooters. The
pediatrician should be counseling about recognition of ominous
symptoms to parents. We need to hold these parents accountable for
their inactions..

edwin a. novak

01/18/13

I am a physician
assistant working
now in geriatric
care in my local
Long-Term Skilled
Nursing Facility
after 20 years in
practice in the same
area in "same-day
care" in the area's
largest clinic after
retirement from 25
years of military
service. My
experience in a few
years of emergency
department work here
and clinic work has
been that gun-shot
care has been a
non-issue. People
up here in northern
MN have, typically,
grown up hunting and
target-shooting,
many with a firearm
stored behind the
kitchen door.
Despite increasing
drug and alcohol
abuse problems, we
seldom see "gun
violence" My review
of the video
presentation strikes
me particularly with
the Atlanta area
physician who says
that she sees "4 - 5
gun-violence
patients per hour."
I wonder, is "gun
violence" mostly a
matter of
socio-economic or
cultural conditions
- "learned or copied
behavior"? Folks up
here likely have as
many
drug/alcohol/money/domestic
"issues" as anywhere
else in the U. S.
but resorting to the
use of "guns" to
settle problems is a
truly rare event -
short the much, much
higher rate in the
"Twin Cities" of
Minneapolis/St. Paul
with a combined
population of some
800,000+ people.
Reminds of some
ancient studies on
crowding and
violence trends....

S Zamparippa

01/18/13

should we ask about video game exposure? real physicians dont have time to
address all of what damn politicians want us to do. shut the politicians out of
the exam room and let us be doctors and not pawns for the damn liberal
politicians!.

edwin a. novak

01/18/13

Good on ya', Pat H.
Betty, your posting
demonstrates some
commonly held
"myths", ie.
"Hundred round
magazines/Automatic
weapons/multiple
magazines." Your
comments about
"mental health
problem detection"
is well-taken but
challenging our
patients about
"guns" in some
geographic regions
such as "high gun
violence areas"
where guns settle
"scores" may exist
may be
counterproductive.
A health-care
provider who is
going to discuss
"guns" with a
patient needs to
actually know
something worthwhile
about "guns" before
opening the
conversation. I ask
the questions that I
already know most of
the nuances of..

Ken K

01/18/13

Medpage seems
committed to being
another liberal
propaganda outlet
rather than being a
medical site..

SW

01/18/13

The intensity of the
comments here is
astounding. This
was simply a video
of physicians
discussing their
observations and
experience with gun
violence. Nothing
was said about
politics, gun
control, or anything
related. Why would
a doctor ask whether
there's a gun in the
home? For the same
reason she might ask
if you keep cleaning
products within
reach of your
children. The
intention is to
start a discussion
about safety. Isn't
that what health
professionals do?
Take a deep breath
people..

KAC RN

01/18/13

Mr de Luca, who are the experts on gun control? Considering the
events of the past year or 10, perhaps we could use some new
experts, or at least new people weighing in on the issues. All
physicians have personal opinions; the better ones can see past
their personal bias to a neutral ground when it comes to patient
needs. I do not see anything wrong with a physician or other
healthcare professional discussing gun possession with patients.
SOMEONE needs to take up the issue. The obviously disturbed young
man, who murdered all the children and teachers at Sandy Hook
appears to have been completely off his mother's radar when it came
to the possibility of violence. A conversation between her and a
doctor might have had some impact. It is hard to say where her
head was when it came to her son, but what if his or her doctor had
asked about guns in the home? That's a painful thought. Now,
excuse me while I step up on my soap box: all that clap-trap
about "guns don't kill people, people kill people and what about
knives and lead pipes and alcohol and cars...", that is crap. One
on one, yes, any weapon can be deadly. But, one man or woman with
a knife against 50 or 100 potential victims vs one assailant with
an assault rifle and half a dozen clips of ammunition - or even a
9mm with multiple clips? Really? Alcohol and cars are a lethal
combination too, but one drunk cannot come close to killing the way
an assailant with an assault rifle can. That is not to say the
drunk should fair better in the legal system. I am all for
charging them with first degree murder and throwing them in jail
for the rest of their miserable lives (oops, veering off course).
In summary, ANYONE who has a stake in the welfare of the individual
sitting in front of them, whether it's a physician, nurse, priest
or friend has to feel obligated to ask the hard questions: are you
safe? Do you feel you could hurt someone or yourself? Do you have
access to a gun? And, Tim: this isn't politics, it is healthcare.
How much closer to the heart of healthcare can you get than mental
health or a bullet in the head?.

david cohen

01/18/13

We need to blame the perpetator, not the tool. We need to use the
law to incarcerate criminals and treat and monitor the mentally
ill, not (as in NY) use the law to criminalize law-abiding gun
owners while we ignore the breakdown of the mental health system.
We need to recognize that guns are dangerous, and that owning one
brings with it responsibility is making sure it is used and stored
safely and securely. We need to recognize that guns in this country
are ubiquitous, and that NO amount of gun restriction will get guns
out of the hands of criminals; and that there is NO way to
successfully block importation of illegal firearms any more
successfully that Prohibition did with alcohol, or the DEA is doing
with drugs, given a 21,500 mile border around the US and Alaska. We
need to recognize that there are about 16000 murders annually in
this country, 2/3 of which are committed with firearms, 95% with
handguns (NOT "assault weapons" or high-capacity firearms, and most
of which are committed by people with criminal records; but only
600-700 accidental gun deaths, ~15000 accidental injuries, and
about 1/2 to 1 million violent crimes defended against with
firearms annually. Finally, we need to realize that bad things
happen; no matter what laws there are, criminals will still have
and use guns; and the best way to prevent a large body count is be
able to drop the crazy SOB ASAP with your own gun..

Abraham

01/18/13

After the Newtown tragedy, discussing ways to avoid another such tragedy is only natural.
The whole nation was affected by what happened, but doctors were among the first to be impacted.
Doctors have every right to speak their minds, because they have a role in preventing it.
Doctors have a role in treating those injured, and saving lives.
None of these tragedies would have been as horrid, if it wasn't as easy to carry out.
If our children can't go to school or to a movie or a mall safely, what have we come to?.

jeff a

01/18/13

Do these doctors ask about cars in the home? Cars kill a lot more
people than guns.
Medpage is more liberal everyday. Again, again, again, as a doctor
I want science, medical facts, not liberal b.s. that you editors
post everyday. Have some objectiveness of the facts and post some
doctors who are members of swat teams, gun enthusiast doctors,
etc. ONE-sided, just like the liberals always are. Pitiful..

Informed Nurse

01/18/13

The Second Amendment is an exercise in anti-tyranny. The Founders
understood human nature. At the time of it's passage, both the
government and the average person owned muskets. It appears
logically that the law-abiding citizen should have access to
weapons which strike fear in the hearts of would-be tyrants. Of
course, rampant illegitimacy and family breakdown was not an issue
during that time. That and mental illness are what needs to be
addressed, not disarming law-abiding citizens..

Doc A

01/18/13

jeff a --
Cars are built to take a person from one place to another, and like a lot of things created for one purpose
(knives for cutting, airplanes for travel, crosswalks for walking) you can die if misused. Guns are created
to put a bullet through something so it dies. The difference is, in the wrong hands a car or knife can kill
if used IMproperly. A gun can kill if used properly, in the wrong hands..

maura

01/18/13

There are many excellent comments and the only comment I can make is
I truly enjoy MedPage and forget about the "liberal political"
agenda. If a Physician deems it necessary to ask certain questions -
he should. David Cohen your comment was to the point and I thought
it was wonderful. Jacob Schneider, I also was taught gun safety at a
very early age and have owned fire arms my whole life. In fact many
years ago, (40) a carried one to and from work because of where I
worked and the capacity in which I was working. We definitely need
more mental health available for those who require help. Mental
illness is a viable issue in our society now and needs to be
recognized as such..

dorothygreen

01/18/13

Myths
1. The government is going to take my guns away.......
We the people are the government. And the majority of us believe
assault guns and high volume magazines have no other use except to
kill large numbers of people and they are a large part of the
problem.
2. It is the mentally ill who are the problem......
It is the dangerous among us who have access to very dangerous
guns who are a problem. Some are mentally ill. In Newtown this
seems to have been both a young man AND his mother. Others who kill
masses of people many never get the label of mentally ill. They
are just evil.
3. Myth: It is a Constitutional Right to own any kind of weapon
The Constitution was written by a group of men as guidelines to
maintain a Republic without Tyranny. We have many amendments
because it was and still is not a perfect document. It may never
be as live changes. With individual rights come social
responsibilities. Are we not mature enough to understand this?
4. Medpage is a medical site not about politics......
young children being treated by physicians and other health
professionals in an ER; families devastated by the loss needing
support and counseling; the costs of such travesties in absolute
lives,lives changed, lives never to be the same, and all the
associated costs to our society. This is all part of a larger
picture of the US compared to 16 other advanced countries (a
recent report by the IOM) that showed: we kill each far more, we
have poorer health, higher health care costs, greater infant
mortality, more teen pregnancies and greater proverty than 16 other
advanced countries in the world. Yes, this IS absolutely a
medical, social AND political issue..

Informed Nurse

01/18/13

Dorothy, the Constitution is NOT a guideline, it is a document
which restrains the government. I could give a rat's behind what
the &quot;majority&quot; wants. They have no say over my natural
rights. We
live in a Constitutional Republic, NOT a Democracy. What is the
percentage of deaths committed by law abiding citizens who own
large capacity magazines?
Mental illness is the problem.
Please feel free to move to one of these utopias that you
mentioned. Enjoy the very high taxes while you're at it..

katherine day

01/18/13

I agree with Dr.
Peter Hughes. We
need to do a much
better job of
identifying and
treating individuals
whose thoughts and
behavior give us
reason to believe
they might be
capable of
committing such an
atrocity. I think
it should begin with
any student who
drops out of school
after the age of
twelve. (This would
eliminate those
children who have
always been home
schooled by parental
decision). Drop
outs need to be
screened for
problems that led to
the decision to
leave school, such
as economic distress
(many kids leave to
get a job and
support themselves
or their family);
needing to care for
younger siblings
while parents work
or if parents are
unable to care for
their young children
themselves, (In
which case,
appropriate
childcare
arrangements need to
be made by the State
or church or other
parties); or
behavioral problems,
learning problems,
or psychiatric
problems. If these
are discovered, we
need to have
appropriate
treatment available,
affordable, and
effective to keep
terrible tragedies
from occurring. The
school is where most
of our children are
seen on a five day a
week basis by
caring, educated,
people. If there are
problems, these
people are most
likely to be aware
of them. Let's use
what we already have
in place to identify
youngsters in need
of one kind of
assistance or
another to become
the best citizens
they can possibly
be..

David Cohen, MD

01/18/13

DorothyGreen- as someone who lives in New York State,and has a
license to cary a gun, and frequently does (because the world can
be a bad place, and I want to be as prepared to maintain my health
and my family's as well as I am to take care of my patients) I can
tell you that the government taking some of my guns, magazines, and
access to ammunition (so I can practice, and know that I will hit
what I need to, and NOT hit what I shouldn't) is not a myth- it
happened this week, by our governor bypassing the usual legislative
and public scrutiny steps on his way to securing the 2016
Democratic Presidential nomination. It IS about politics, fear-
mongering, hysteria, and deflecting the blame from the unmitigated
disasters that the bleeding heart "liberal" (but only to no-
taxpaying, non-law abiding, and/or non-citizen individuals)
lawmakers have made out of our criminal justice, mental health, and
social service "entitlement" programs. Don't blame me, or my guns,
for that; and don't tell me that as a physician, I should be
unwilling to use force to protect myself if I need to.. It IS
reasonable for a primary care doc to ask if there are guns in the
house, if they are safely stored, and offer advice to his patient
to help maintain there health and safety (as with questions
regarding alcohol and tobacco use, seatbelt use, etc); however, it
is NOT a physician's responsibility to be society's policeman, or
the arbiter of gun control. We also have a much more heterogeneous
society than most countries in Europe; and in those countries where
the populations are becoming rapidly infused with foreigners, there
is escalating violence (such as in France and Germany). In 2011,
Andres Breivik killed 92 people using handguns and homemade bombs-
this was a higher body count than ANY mass shooting in the USA, in
a country with extremely strict gun laws- all those gun
restrictions did was make it impossible to stop him before he
racked up that high a total. If there was a teacher, guard or other
person legally armed with a gun in Newtown, or Aurora, or
Columbine, or Virginia Tech (where the highest body count of a mass
shooting in the USA occurred, with not a single "assault rifle),
rather than having to wait for the cops to get there, do you think
the body count would have been higher or lower? Since I am a GI,
should I ignore a person on the street who is having trouble
breathing or chest pain? Please.....get real!The best defense
against violent crime is NOT taking guns from law-abiding citizens-
it's a well armed populace that raises the stakes for would-be
killers..

Carolyn Kay, Many Years Young

01/19/13

Informed Nurse: "The Second Amendment is an exercise in anti-
tyranny."
The Second Amendment doesn't say that people can have any weapons at
all. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to prohibit private citizens
from owning bazookas, and even aircraft carriers.
Besides, this whole anti-control frame of mind is keeping us all
from joining together to make this country a safer place to live.
And safety IS a medical issue.
From Mark Ames, author of "Going Postal":
The post-WWII "political culture — where people were more involved
in their politics and trusted government more than they trusted
business — was a big problem, according to pollsters and PR experts
hired by business lobby groups in the postwar era, groups like the
National Association of Manufacturers and the Chamber of Commerce.
"Much better is to pour arms unrestricted into the population, give
them legal cover and political encouragement to take political
matters into their own hands with laws like 'Stand Your Ground'.
That way you wind up creating a political culture of atomized, fear-
fueled citizens who think they’re literally at war with each other,
and their only way out is to fend for themselves and their family.".

Bruce Mc

01/19/13

If talking about the safety of our children and all people in our country and trying to figure out ways of keeping us all safe is a liberal propaganda outlet then we are not a democracy or a caring people. Try to lay aside misguided views about something being liberal or conservative and let's just be decent God loving Americans!.

manuelhm, md

01/19/13

This woman, the mother of Lanza is totally responsible for giving
access weapon to his son, an irresponsible and immature person with
poor impulse control. How do we prevent people like Lanza's mother
from gaining access to weapons and passing it to folks who shouldn't
have them ?.

Robin Stamm

01/19/13

Let me know when the discussion involves the first phrase of the second amendment. And for
those who really think the founding fathers agreed about the content of the Constitution, you
haven't been well-informed. The document is the result of compromise, as are the amendments.
If they would find a way to compromise then, surely we can do the same..

Dr. Dean Raffelock

01/19/13

The majority of these murderers were on psych meds that were contraindicated for their age
group. Klebold and Harris were both teenagers on SSRIs. The list is a long one. Big
Pharma's pushing of 'off label' uses of psych meds is partially responsible. Health insurance
companies refusing to pay for psychotherapy because drugs cost them less is also a factor. I
believe that no one taking antipsychotics or atypical antipsychotics or 2 or more psych meds
should be allowed to own a firearm. The common practice of throwing atypical antipsychotics
on top of SSRIs makes zero sense to me because SSRIs inhibit serotonin re-uptake and atypical
antipsychotics block serotonin and other neurotransmitters...pretty confusing for neurons I
would think with potentially devastating results..

SCR

01/19/13

It is not the guns,it is the drugs. In every school shooting the shooters were on some type of antidepressant or anti
anxiety drug. No one wants to talk about that. When we watch the national news we can all learn about the side
effects of these drugs. The commercials tell us to call our doctor if we have suicidal thoughts. Obviously, these
kids did not. These kids in their twenties are the first of our Ritalin generation. IMHO, i don't think it is a good idea
to give a cocaine derivative drug to a developing brain. Then some of these kids go from Ritalin to some type of
antidepressant. It is sad to see the amount of drugs our children are on. In 1991 the CDC and the AAP added the
Hep B shot with 12.5 mcg of mercury on the day of birth to the ever increasing childhood schedule. That is where
the brain damage begins. When will this madness stop?.

lees

01/19/13

When I was a freshman in college, shortly after getting out of the Army (during Viet Nam), I lived in an
apartment fairly close to the campus. One morning about 4AM I heard someone in the kitchen. Going to
look I found a man who started toward me. I had a revolver and I shot him. He turned and fled. Had I
not had that weapon, I might not be here to write this so I do not believe that taking guns out of the
hands of responsible adults is a valid course of action. I agree with David Cohen who seems to have a lot
more sense than many other posters on here.
By the way, I am a woman about 5 foot tall so fighting this home invader was not an option and I didn't
have time to sit and wait 20 minutes for the police..

David Cohen, MD

01/19/13

Thank you, PM! You are correct- Dr Cantor knows s--t about firearms
or terminal performance of ammunition. Revolvers are markedly more
accurate than autoloading pistols, especially when fired single
action- once the hammer falls, only the bullet moves (as opposed to
autoloaders, where the slide and barrel cycle to load the next
round, moving the gun and decreasing accuracy, especially in
inexperienced hands). Anyone who thinks that a bolt-action rifle is
good for home defense also knows nothing about the pyhysiology of
the fear reaction- most homeowners, with no combat experience, will
be in such an adrenaline rush in a home-invasion, life-and-death
situation that they won't be able to cycle the bolt (even if the
gun is already loaded); meanwhile, the intruder (who will likely
have a handgun) will be shooting away. The damage done by a
single .357, .454 Casul, 500 magnum (all revolver rounds) or 12
gauge slug or shotshell is significantly greater than that done by
the autoloader calibers used in most crimes (.380, 9mm, .22, .40).
The second amendment WAS written when the guns in a home were
flintlocks; however, that was the state of the art in the military
as well. Even suggesting that one can defend oneself against a hood
with a 38 or 9mm, or even .22 repeating weapon (revolver,
autoloader, bolt or slide action), using a single-shot, black-
powder flintlock pistol is either blinded by their idealism, or an
idiot. Folks- this is a knowledge post- please have some knowledge
about what you speak..

Banallguns

01/19/13

A gun has a sole purpose. To harm or kill another living being. Anyone who claims it conscionable to own guns
have other agendas thus they should not own one. Thank you for making the educated people's voice (in this
case the dr's) be heard. I hope people realize that they are defending the giant gun industry not "freedom"..

Norman M Canter MD

01/19/13

Re: PM..You are as
wrong in our
assessment of my
knowledge of
ammunition and
firearms as you are
in the spelling of
my name. My interest
in and study of
firearms has been
during a period of
70 years. A
meticulous study of
muzzle velocity will
indicate that pistol
cartridges usually
have a higher
velocity than
revolver cartridges.
Revolvers are
intrinsically less
accurate since they
do not have as flat
a trajectory and
because of the need
for re-loading and
cocking with a
trigger pull;
automatic pistols
re-load as part of
the mechanism and
because some of the
recoil is absorbed
in the re-cocking
mechanism and so are
better firing
platforms.My
personal experience
with firearms
includes past
ownership or 5
handguns and 6
rifles. I have not
hunted. My interest
has been
technical..I did go
to the range on 2
occasions. My
interest has covered
the period from
flintlocks through
the firearms of
WW-2.I have also
tended gunshot
wounds surgically.
My name is spelled
Canter.You should
study tables of
cartridge velocities
and muzzle energies..

Richard A. Berg, Ph.D.

01/19/13

I personally know of
a number of
instances wherein
civilian female
friends and my late
wife defended
themselves with
their firearms
against criminals
intent upon at least
robbery, perhaps
worse. That sounds
like a good thing to
me.
I'm a semi-retired
investigative
psychologist - that
is I was an
investigator with a
PhD in psychology -
I'm just 5'7", and I
have often worked
alone in the "inner
city ghettos" so I
carried concealed
all the time. To
date, I have pulled
my weapon three
times in order to
avoid being attacked
for no good reason
on the street -
unless you consider
robbery a good
reason. I am
fortunate in that
just the fact that I
was armed ended the
situation with my
attackers running
like hell so I did
not have to fire a
shot (always a bad
idea in a crowded
street with lots of
innocent
bystanders).
I, of course, drew
my weapon many more
times during the
course of making an
arrest - but we need
not talk of those
cases.
So, you want to take
away my and my
civilian friends
means of self
defense? I think
not. ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ.

Norman M Canter MD

01/19/13

Dr. Cohen's
unnecessary use of
profanity..as well
as wrong the
spelling of my name
does little to
enhance his
reputation or that
of any profession. I
wonder what medical
school he attended
to be taught to
express himself in
such a common and
vulgar fashion.
There are 3 million
words in the English
language there are
better choices. I
doubt that he has
fired handguns at a
target for
accuracy....I
have..both revolvers
and automatic
pistols..

S, Graves MD

01/19/13

People who want you
to give up your guns
also want to control
every other aspect
of your life--if you
have no right to
self defense, you
have no rights at
all.
Like most other
mainstream
publications
owned/controlled by
the corporate world,
this site regularly
promotes the
Big-Brother
Totalitarianism
currently labeling
itself "Progressive"
and "Liberal"..

Richard A. Berg, Ph.D.

01/19/13

Dr. Canter: At the
distances actually
involved in real
life gun fights
neither weapon
accuracy nor muzzle
velocity make any
significant
difference. Ninety
percent of real life
shootings occur at
distances of zero to
twenty feet (most on
the lower end of
that scale); and,
they occur by
surprise, in low
light level
situations with no,
or only rudimentary
use of the sights -
most are virtually
instantaneous point
and shoot.
I have been in a
bunch of firefights
/ shooting incidents
in addition to the
draw, display, don't
shoot incidents
mentioned
previously. I only
took careful,
deliberate aim while
in the army firing
an M-16 rifle at the
enemy at ranges
greater than 50
yards. In the cases
of CQB (close
quarters) when I
have used my handgun
it has been
instinctive point
and shoot even
though I am an
excellent, well
trained, oft
practiced combat
pistol expert.
As to large capacity
magazines: I
routinely carry an
Officer's Model
Colt.45 pistol with
a magazine
containing only 6
rounds plus one in
the chamber (cocked
and locked) - very
"hot" hollow points;
but, those who carry
a rather ubiquitous
9mm which has much
less stopping power
NEED more rounds to
STOP a single
assailant, and
certainly more
rounds to stop
multiple assailants.
the idea of
shooting an
assailant is to STOP
his assault . . . a
.22 might kill him,
but not until after
he has killed the
victim . . . my .45
may not kill him but
it will sure as hell
STOP him forthwith.
So, let's do much
more to keep the
guns out of the
hands of the crazies
and to put weapons
into the hands of
the sane, law
abiding folks who
want them and are
willing to be
trained to properly
use them..

Robert Peterson, Ph.D

01/19/13

It is interesting that many who post replies refuse to see gun deaths
as another public health problem. They see it as a political issue.
Deaths from automobile crashes are not a political problem but
they are a public health problem. Auto deaths have been declining because
of improvements in highway construction, seat belts, air bags and crush
zones in addition to social pressure against drunk driving.
Guns could be constructed so they are less lethal but still protective and
their use restricted to the owner by technological fixes which would not
allow them to fire without some kind of owner ID like a fingerprint or
iris identification. In other words it might be easier to develop a
technological fix than to change political views and individual behavior..

Dr. Dean Raffelock

01/19/13

As our nation argues about the interpretation of the 2nd amendment, we seem oblivious to the
fact that our 4th amendment (privacy) and 6th amendment (due process) rights have been
stolen from us. Very sad....

tom hickey

01/19/13

A rural sheriff talked to the husband of one of the teachers at the
Sandy Hook elementary school. The husband got a call from his wife
that people had been shot in the classroom next door, now the
shooter was coming her way, and she was calling to say goodbye.
The anguished husband's comment to the sheriff was that he wished
his wife's hand had held a gun instead of a cellphone.
We doctors have worked so hard to know what we know. We spend our
over-full days telling people staff and patients what to do. Some
of us let that go to our heads and believe we're smarter than
everyone except paid lecturers, and therefore we can elect
ourselves to intrude in our patients personal beliefs and
practices. The attitude that "We're the ones who know stuff!
" leads to the feeling that we're entitled to power without
accountability. The doctors who interrogate patients about guns at
home would be the ones most outraged if the patient replied by
asking "Well, first tell me which church you belong to and
how often you attend services, or did you vote for Obama or Romney,
or do you drink alcohol and how much?" This has led to such
extremes as the British pediatric association lobbying to ban
pointy kitchen knives. Will that get all those already-illegal
switchblades out of the pockets of guys who casually commit crimes
with much more serious penalties? Doctors should stick to what they
know, which is their own specialty, and leave social engineering to
the voting public..

william ray PhD

01/19/13

Dr. Canter, perhaps you should study facts about guns, rather than propaganda. Your facts are wrong,
you don't know what you're talking about. 70 years, or 2 years. Revolvers are /far/ more accurate than
auto-loading pistols, and are /the/ handgun of choice for accuracy, out of the box. Accurizing an auto-
loader such that it can compete with any standard-grade revolver, costs thousands of dollars, and makes
the auto-loader all-but unusable in practice, as the tolerances become too finicky for reliable operation.
Simultaneously, the slowest standard round you'll see out of any common revolver, is the .38 special.
The .38 is ballistically similar to the 9mm, with the 9mm being slightly higher velocity. The 9mm, and
the slower .45ACP however, are by far the dominant cartridges in autoloaders, and neither come
anywhere near the velocity of the favored revolver cartridges like the .357 and .44 magnums. Some
time, when you want to actually learn something about guns, rather than accumulate heart-wrenching
talking points regardless of their veracity, feel free to ping me. I'll be happy to show you, and let you
test and verify, the ballistics of practically any revolver, or auto-loader cartridge made in the last century.
I respect that you have an emotional attachment to your incorrect information, and I respect your service
and experience in the ER, but neither of these give you a right to spread false information as a
mechanism to garner support for your beliefs..

william ray PhD

01/19/13

The problem Rex, is that there a million things /other/than/ guns that can be plugged into that equation
with the exact same results, while the guns on the other side of the equation (the one where they're
preventing some deaths, because they're the only thing that equalizes the odds for a woman versus a
male predator, or the elderly vs a young punk, etc), are the _only_ thing that fits the slot.
If zero guns were available, there would _still_ have been 1,000,000 unnecessary deaths, because people
who want to kill someone, _will_find_a_way_, guns or no guns. There would _also_ have been, based on
all estimates, several million additional unnecessary deaths, of innocent victims denied the only effective
means to protect themselves.
_this_ is why one side is pointing their finger at everything except the guns - Eliminating guns from the
equation changes nothing. Eliminating people who want to kill other people, even if guns remain,
changes everything..

Tony, md

01/19/13

The varied responces to the article and its view points reflect a
the value of our free speech republic. Such debates among
physicians must be evidenced based at best or at the least supported
with logic. Moral relativism, logical positivism, candor and
respect may help us enter this "public health" concern discussion.
Why has the tragic occurence of recent mass shootings evoked this
and not the generational homicide rates of inner city/urban areas??
Why is a child valued in our nation but not when we use drones or in
the past manned bombers or blind missles overseas thus "collateral
casualties" that create more adversaries? Let's get real and accept
what we collectively are doing or not doing. Pogo said it best
"We's met the enemy and he's us." Both sides stop shouting and lets
figure out who and what we really are and what we can achieve
together under law, morally and effectively. Use our brains not our
ideologies..

Jackie Beene M.D.

01/19/13

@ Norman Canter MD, despite the fact that you say you
own guns, you obviously do not understand handguns.
So before you make yourself look like more of an
idiot, go take an educational course at the local
shooting range and ask questions to confirm your
statements. As regards the dangers to firearms,
instead of calling for bans, find out the cause of
why and how they were used. If we want to call for
bans on things that cause injuries, I guess we could
start by outlawing physicians and make it illegal to
be one. Would therefore cut down on accidental deaths
due to physician incompetence.
@ npp, I agree that we should have some sort of
background check. However when you start making
statements that one needs to pass a test to own a
firearm, etc. this is equivalent to requiring the
general public to pass some sort of testing to be
able to vote. This was tried in the South and was
found to be unconstitutional. Even idiots are allowed
to vote and even idiots are allowed to own firearms
as well as procreate. It is a constitutional right.
@ betty cooper-ritchey, I agree that 30 and 100 round
magazine are unnecessary. They are often unreliable,
unfortunately the same results can be accomplished
with multiple 10 round magazines. I do agree that we
need to do more for the mentally ill and that these
individuals should not have had access to firearms. I
also have ER experience in the past. In my present
practice I spend 2 days each week going to
residential care centers where I take care of the
mentally ill. The mother of the Newtown killer was
trying to get guardianship over him so as to get him
placed in just such a facility. Take a look at how
hard this is to get done sometime. Her failure was in
not securing her firearms knowing that he was
unstable.
@ all, automobiles, Physicians, baseball bats,
knifes, prescription medications have caused injury
and death but we are not talking about bans. Only on
firearms, that is because the liberals feel that if
they can just get rid of them, then they can run the
country as a dictatorship and take away the rest of
our constitutional rights. Remember, without guns for
the general public to oppose them they can strip away
what rights they don't want us to have..

David Cohen, MD

01/19/13

Dr. Canter- I apologize for misspelling your name; and I am sorry
if a single use of the word s--t so offends you that you feel my
use of it undermines my entire argument- perhaps a different view
from your ivory tower would help you with perspective.
I went to SUNY-Downstate, and did most of my med school clinical
rotations, including my surgical elective in trauma surgery, at
Kings County Hospital, where GSW's were an hourly occurence, and we
removed bullets in clinic. I did my residency at Mt Sinai, which
included covering Elmhurst hospital, were GSW's were also an hourly
occurence, and as the 3rd year resident during ER rotations, I had
to attend all the trauma codes (usually GSW's, or DWI's).Finally, I
did my fellowship at Beth Israel in New York.
I also do not hunt; my interest in firearms is also technical. I
currently own 10 handguns,revolvers and autoloaders, ranging from
a .22 derringer to a S&W 500 magnum revolver. I belong to a gun
club near my home in upstate NY, go shooting at least once a month,
and generally fire 200-300 rounds of varying calibers at each
sitting, especially .22, 9mm, .380, and .45 ACP, as these are the
calibers of my concealed carry pieces, and I am of the strong
opinion that if you carry, you need to practice so you don't miss
what you're aiming at, or hit what you aren't . I shhot at paper
targets at combat range (7 yards), 10 and 15 yards, as well as
various solid things (cans, melons, coconuts, phone books), and am
very aware of the muzzle velocities and muzzle energies of the
varimultiple types of ammo I use in each caliber I shot, as well as
what role the bullet's weight, shape, jacketing, etc. play in the
bullet's terminal performance over and above the muzzle energy and
velocity. What I said about revolvers versus autoloaders stands,
particularly if firing single action; also, the generally larger
mass for any given caliber and barrel length of a revolver compared
to an autoloader of the same barrel length and caliber also adds to
the better accuracy of a revolver.
Rex Mentis- the day Adam Lanza shot 20 kindergarteners, and 7
adults (2of whom thought they could stop him while unarmed), 90
million other people with over 300,000,000 guns shot NO ONE. On the
other hand, ALCOHOL plus CARS plus LACK OF CONSEQUENCES FOR
MISBEHAVIOR cause about 50% more deaths per year in this country,
and there are between 50-100 thousand needless deaths related to
medical errors annually in the US . Are we blaming the cars and
booze? Are we severely curtailing what doctors can do until we
figure out a foolproof way of avoiding errors? Are you and others
like you going to only look at the 11,000 firearm related murders
in this country (of which about 1-2% are committed with ANY kind of
long gun, but ignore the estimated 1/2 to 2 MILLION violent crimes
terminated or prevented annually, that statistically wouls add 5000-
10000 murders a year if not prevented? Do you have an answer for
the people who were saved serious injury or death by a gun? In
violent crimes, seconds count, and the police are minutes away.

Norman M Canter MD

01/19/13

To clarify my
opinion: citizens
could protect
themselves against
personal crime and
household intrusion
quite adequately
with revolvers of
the appropriate
caliber. Distances
involved negate the
advantages of the
automatic pistol.
Hunting requires
rifles or shotguns
of bolt, lever,
slide action but
does not demand
semi-automatic or
automatic weapons.
My
suggestion..therefore..is
that ownership of
hand guns need not
be
restricted..beyond
background checks
for felony and
certain types of
mental illness..if
revolvers are
permitted and
pistols are
relegated to law
enforcement agencies
and the military.
Semi-automatic and
automatic rifles are
best limited to the
military and law
enforcement
agencies. That is
the argument...the
rest is persiflage..

Non-Kool-Aid Drinker M.D.

01/19/13

I agree with Ken.
Medpage should stay
out of the political
arena. The Liberal
Media doesn't need
anymore help.
I am of the opinion
that one should
never trust a
government that
doesn't trust its
own citizens to
protect themselves.
The problem is not
with guns, but with
more aggressive
enforcement of the
gun laws we already
have.
Strict gun laws have
been of little value
in reducing gun
crimes/deaths in
Chicago or Mexico
(Places with very
strict gun laws)..

Tim Wheeler, MD

01/19/13

As a former surgical trainee who rotated through Cleveland's
Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital, I would like to
introduce readers to more information about this subject. The
academic medical community has little to say about the role of
firearms in American history and the social utility of firearms as
proven by decades of criminology research.
For my first-person account (I was a witness at the congressional
hearings) of why Congress defunded the CDC's firearm research, read
my series, Public Health Gun Control: A Brief History at the web
site of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership..

Dr. Dean Raffelock

01/19/13

There appears to be an erroneous stereotype by some here that "liberals" are against owning
firearms. I live in Boulder County, Colorado-the most liberal, well educated county in the state
of CO which also happens to have the highest percentage of concealed carry permits in the state
of Colorado. Also, there are approximately 310,000,000 people in the U.S. and 80,000,000
legally own firearms. About 25% of our population is under 18 years old leaving approx.
232,500,000 adults. So unless my math is way off, slightly more than 1 out of 3 U.S. adults
legally own at least one firearm. Republican and Democratic voters were relatively equally
divided in the last presidential election so about 40,000,000 democrats (mosty liberals) own
firearms..

Douglas Lewis

01/19/13

I will echo most of my colleagues: violence is the person, not the
weapon. I notice that none of the doctors in the 'report' mentioned
how many people they had seen that had been saved from injury in a
violent crime because someone was there to protect them with a gun.
Either get off the political bandwagon or please remove me from
your subscribers..

ptadvct

01/19/13

Doctors comment on
guns? I am bothered
and wonder why no
one from health care
nor the church has
reminded americans
how many
kindergartners are
killed by abortion.
26 in CT? Not to
sound cold but
that's less than a
mornings work at a
clinic. Where is
the out rage and out
cry for these kids?
Doctors, nurses and
the clergy are the
communities last
institutions for
compassion. What's
happened to us?.

Norman M Canter MD

01/19/13

Is it so peculiar
that those of us who
have had to operate
to save patients
from death or
permanent disability
from gunshot wounds
would have opinions
about firearms?
There is nothing
like a 4 hour
operation for
multiple internal
injuries..gastric/colonic/splenic/hepatic/renal
and pancreatic and
vascular with
massive blood loss
...performed at 2-6
AM to create a
lasting impression
on the mind of he
physician/surgeon.
Or of operating upon
a patient for a
shotgun blast to the
liver and kidney.
Politics do not
enter the operating
room at times like
those....just a
sense of
desperation...sometimes
hopelessness or
regret..

Kirkwood57106

01/19/13

Commenters: This has
NOTHING to do with
politics, so save
save the prejudices
for the campaign
trail please. It has
to do with common
sense.
WHY is it that some
think the medical
professionals are
the first line of
defense regarding
gunshots? Do doctors
or nurses have
anything to do with
the decision of a
person to buy a gun
or not? NO.
Only strengthening
existing law to make
the gun owner
responsible for any
harm from their gun
will make people
responsible enough
to lock them up so
criminals can't
steal them, children
can't play with
them, and (perhaps)
not use them to harm
others.
Hard prison time
just might make
people think twice
before buying or
using a gun
improperly. Prisons
too full? None
violent prisoners
can better be served
with home arrest
(unless on the job)
by wearing ankle
detectors that send
an alarm to the
police if they leave
the premises. Let
them pay for their
own food and
medical.
As I said: Common
Sense.

william ray PhD

01/19/13

Rex, I apologize for confusing you. It's usually easiest to predict the behavior of complex systems if you
look at the behavior at the limits first, and a reasonably intelligent person can interpolate other
predictions from there. One can just as easily substitute "controlling availability and use" in what I
wrote, for "eliminate", and the results are the same. I'll get you started : "If you control the availability of
guns in that equation, nothing changes". I'll leave it to you to complete the rest as an exercise.
Also - I've no idea what you're on about, regarding vehicles - gunshot death statistics _do_ pale by
comparison to vehicular deaths, and, motor vehicle ownership, with the exception of some peculiar age
restrictions, is all but unregulated in this country. There are no motor-vehicle purchasing background
checks, no "have a disgruntled ex-spouse file a restraining order and lose your vehicle" laws, etc. You'll
be hard pressed to find any other consumer product that is controlled anywhere near as tightly as
firearms are in the US..

JKB

01/19/13

I thank Dr Cohen for
posting his
knowledge regarding
guns. But to all of
those who say keep
the guns out of the
hands of people with
mental health
problems, how in the
world do you know
who has and doesn't
have mental health
problems. It is so
easy to get guns
these days, gun
control will, in
truth, have very
little effect, and
may make it worse.
Background checks
will have little
effect on those who
really want to get a
weapon. Live in a
high crime area, and
find out more about
how guns can be
obtained if one
wants one bad
enough. Actually,
anywhere you live
you can, without to
much trouble, obtain
a gun. Do you really
think that they
can't be obtained
from other
countries. Gun
control is so stupid
as it will actually
make little
difference. Gun
control or no gun
control, if someone
wants a weapon, they
will get it!! Good
grief, has anyone
thought how many
other weapons out
there can be used to
kill. I do challenge
you to keep guns out
of the hands of the
mentally ill,
criminals etc. So
who am I to say such
things...a Critical
Care Nurse,who has
worked in every area
possible, an
educator, and a
retired LTC from the
Army Nurse care. I
have been around and
used many types of
weapons. I commend
all of you who have
used REAL CRITICAL
THINKING SKILLS
regarding this
matter that seems to
have everybody
talking and arguing..

william ray PhD

01/19/13

Well, now that you've changed your tune Dr. Canter, let's have a pop quiz. I see you've started lumping
automatic weapons in with semi-autos, since the "auto-loaders are too accurate and too powerful". So -
tell me - You're apparently afraid of automatic weapons in the hands of the public - I have to assume
this is based on something other than "they scare me", so - exactly how many deaths have been caused
by legally owned automatic weapons? If you don't know, give me a guess - since 1934 - what's a good
round number?
(As an aside, the "in the home" range of engagement is exactly where an autoloading pistol _does_ have
useful advantages. You've got that detail backwards again)..

Norman M Canter MD

01/20/13

William Ray PhD
states that
auto-loaders must be
accuratized at a
cost of thousands of
dollars to compete
with standard grade
revolvers "out of
the box".Neither the
police with their
Glocks or Smith and
Wessons or Rugers
or Sig-Sauers or
similar weapons need
to accuratize their
guns or the military
with their Berettas
need to do so for
accuracy. Police
nationwide and the
military have
evolved from
revolvers to
semi-automatic
pistols for the
simple reason that
they can place more
rounds into their
chosen targets more
accurately and in a
shorter time.
They can also
exchange clips in a
firefight. These
features are not
needed for personal
or household
protection. Please
stick to the facts
without imputing
motives or emotions
to me.
Furthermore..I am
not aware that I
have changed my
tune. I have voiced
this opinion before
this time and in the
same fashion..

Hernandez, MD

01/20/13

I am a Medical Doctor, a specialist in psychiatry and human
behavior. I don't own a gun. I was an expert M-14 shooter in the US
Army. I am proud of my Expert Medal, frankly I don't own a gun,
never did. I think those who like guns should buy the kind they
like, Unless they are emotionally unstable, then they should be
denied that right. Yes it is a right protected by the US
Constitution. It is my choice at this time not to exercise it,
however, I reserve that right for the future if I need to do so. I
came from a communist country where the first thing the new
government did when they took power and before they admitted to the
people that they were about to impose a communist dictatorship was
to confiscate all the weapons any one own. They would shoot you on
the spot as a conspirator against the revolution if they found a
weapon on you.That dictatorship celebrated their 53rd anniversary
January 1st. They are our neigbors 30 miles off Key West, by now
you know it is Cuba. I don't hear any one in the government saying
lets provide funds to open all those psychiatric hospitals that
were closed since the 90s when managed care took over health care.
In my county there were 4 adolescent hospitals with long term stay,
if needed the could stay for 6 months or a year, all of them were
closed.Since then, the county population has increased by near one
half. The adjacent Sate Mental Hospital had 120 adolescent beds,
these were long term adolescent beds, years if neccesary . Where
are those adolescents today that need to be in those beds for
posing a danger to self and or a danger to others? No one is
evaluating their needs. The adults that are a danger to self and
others are staying for 72 hours and released because there are no
beds for them to stay either.( The voters 10 years ago approved a
special income tax to pay for new mental health programs, as usual
the politician use that money to pay for the same programs they had
before, no only that, but they cut programs, although every year
the funds keep piling up). They, the discontented, don't need guns
to express their anger. I won't say what other methods could they
use that would cause more deaths, even more horrible deaths than a
machine gun, but If you cannot think of it, they could, once you
take the popular method away. The man who blew the Oklahoma Social
Security Building did not need a gun to kill dozens of innocent
people. The Unibomber did not need a gun to kill and injure people.
As it is now the mental health laws has been watered down so badly
becasue there are no beds,or budgeting for them.The mental health
laws after passed have been rendered ineffective, by a series of
appeals to protect the potential criminal's rights, a new disguised
way to control cost. In my field of expertise there are some people
that refuse to accept the following reality: the same way that a
sane personin his mind migh have a "criminal streak", an "artistic
streak", etc. a mentally ill person have the same potential to
have those same "streaks" and have nothing to do with their mental
illnesses. A sane criminal with a cold is a criminal,the cold did
not cause him to commit the crime , the same way a psychotic
mentally ill criminal, is a criminal, the psychosis did not cause
him to commit the crime..

cesar nolasco

01/20/13

Yearly firearms deaths in this country 13,000 (including
justifiable homicides); yearly deaths from medical misadventures
190,000. Are we, as physicians, focusing on the wrong things?.

David Cohen, MD

01/20/13

Banallguns- you are correct- guns are designed to harm and kill
living things, including people. Unfortunately, we don't live in
the "kumbaya" world that you believe your reality to be. If you
wish to be unable to defend yourself, that's your perogative; the
rest of us do have adendas, including not being defenseless when
faced with someone who has a gun. I don't carry a gun because I
feel inadequate; in a situation where my life is being threatened
by an armed assailant, I AM inadequate if I am unarmed.
Dr Canter- again, you speak with little knowledge. The reason law
enforcement changed from 38 revolvers to high-capacity autoloaders
was because they were frequently dismally outgunned by the
criminals; the turning pointfor the Feds was a shootout in Miami in
1983 between the FBI and drug dealers. Civilians, being faced with
the same weapons, deserve not to have the same disadvantage as the
cops used to. Regarding the police not needing to accuratize their
weapons- perhaps that, and the dismal accuracy training and
practice requirements in some police departments, account for
incidents such as that in midtown Manhattan in August 2012, when a
man who had shot a coworker was shot and killed by the police; 7
bystanders were struck by gunfire, ALL of them hit by cops (the
perpetrator never fired a round after he shot the co-worker).In the
military, although the 1911 Colt 45 became an icon in the US
campaign against the Moros in the Phillipines (as it had better
stopping power than the 38's and .30 Krag rifles they were using),
sidearms are NEVER used as primary weapons, except by special
forces, in special circumstances (and they now use 9mm Beretta
M9's). They, like most civilian handguns, are for "up close and
personal" personal defense, and training with them is cursory. I
guess they are as accurate with their handguns as, say, you were
after your 2 whole trips to the range. So- why shouldn't citizens
have the same capability to defend themselves against street
criminals as the police?.

william ray PhD

01/20/13

Dr. Canter, you seem to be back to fallacious statements about revolver and auto-loader accuracy - I
thought we were on to "wanting to ban semi and full automatic weapons". Oh well... Yes, I did say that if
you wanted an autoloader that was as accurate as an out-of-the-box revolver, you were going to spend
thousands of dollars on accurizing it, and make it ridiculously unreliable in the process. This remains
the case. The fact that the police/military/etc. don't do anything to accurize their autoloading pistols, is
not because they're more accurate than revolvers, it's because
_they_don't_need_them_to_be_more_any_more_accurate_than_they_are_. Their decision to switch to
autoloaders has everything to do with rapidiy of reload. They're willing to accept the decrease in
accuracy, and limitations on power, for the improvement in capacity, decrease in reload time, slightly
slimmer profile, and reduced trigger effort. You started this discussion off claiming that autoloaders
were more powerful, and more accurate than revolvers, you're still wrong, admit it and get over it.
As to whether rapid reload is required for a homeowner, please explain to me why you think that a
person being attacked in a home invasion, ought to have her, or his, survival made contingent on being
accurate enough to stop potentially multiple attackers, with six rounds. What do you tell the person
who was scared witless at 3:00AM, and shaking like leaf, would have needed 7, or 8, or 10 shots to stop
2 or 3 attackers? "Sorry you and the kids are dead, but at least you weren't a bad person and didn't have
an auto-loader, so that should make you happy"?
With respect to your motives, I can only work from what you're giving me. You're spouting falsehoods
intended to make certain varieties of firearms sound "scary", in an attempt to curry favor for the idea of
limiting them, and invoking completely irrelevant, but "scary sounding" things like fully automatic
weapons, when the false information is pointed out. If your motive is something other than the obvious,
you're a tricky one....

william ray PhD

01/20/13

Rex, Rex, Rex - from your earlier message, I thought you were all concerned about precision in
expression, and now you can't seem to keep it straight when you're talking about regulation of motor
vehicles, and regulation of the _use_ of motor vehicles on public roads. Time to go back and try again.
Motor vehicles are all but unregulated. Somehow, in the case of vehicles - which are, as you point out,
inherently ridiculously more dangerous than firearms, we're comfortable making laws about using them
safely, and letting anyone own whatever they want, essentially without restriction. Why is it that you
assume, for firearms, that the solution is restricting ownership, rather than, as with vehicles, restricting
uses?
And, by the bye, yes, when you remove a constant equal to zero from one side of the equation, the other
side doesn't change. I'm pretty sure they start teaching that in about 3rd grade these days. Before you
go around insulting people, perhaps you should learn a bit about how both math, and effective insults
actually work..

edward yu

01/20/13

I am a retired radiologist. At my age I saw that everytime we hear
gun violence, we cry "Gun Ban". Never have we seen our politicians
& all concerned address the ROOT! It needs someone to squeeze the
trigger to shoot,& kill. Educate. Why don't we get back to basics,
starting from the family. Teach what is good/bad to our children
like we used to before WW2. Teach them to respect life & the rights
of others. Teach them the basic ten commandments,instead of
removing it from public view by the following a minority
group,like, banning display of it in public places because it
discrimiate the non believers. Guide children to stay away from
gory violent movies & games. Influencs the children, not children
influencing you. Look around you & see where our morality has gone
to..

EY

01/20/13

Amen to Pat H. As Health practitioners, our role is to educate. Not
asking our patient if he owns a gun. Has anyone check some
statistics around the world regarding gun violence? When I was in
Switzerland, our tour guide said that their army is very small so
each adult is issued a firearm to defend their country if needed, &
yet their gun violence is very minimal. Whereas Chicago & New York,
with very strict gun laws have much higher gun violence per capita..

BP (MD)

01/20/13

I hesitate to add to
what Dr. Ray and
others have
eloquently said in
defense of gun
rights but there is
a certain usefulness
in numbers. The
statement above
"citizens could
protect themselves
against personal
crime and household
intrusion quite
adequately with
revolvers of the
appropriate caliber"
from Dr. Canter is
so naive as to be
amusing. If somebody
is breaking into
your home, you are
the one terrorized,
caught off guard and
at a disadvantage
and it is your right
to take every
opportunity to (more
than) equalize the
situation. A
character recent
"Burn Notice"
episode had a
similar remark to
yours: "14 bad guys,
you have 16
bullets... simple
arithmetic... what's
the problem?". I'm
an excellent shot
but would never fire
fewer than 3 at an
intruder, expecting
that my accuracy in
a real-life
situation would be
vastly inferior to
my range accuracy. I
think you must be
thinking that a 6
round revolver is
good enough because
you don't think
you'd miss, 1 bullet
should take somebody
down and your odds
of being attacked by
more than 6 people
are slim... You
forget adrenaline,
misfires, missing
your target, cover
fire, warning shots
(if you believe in
them), etc. Are you
really that cool
handed or are you
just as naive as I
suspect?.

BP (MD)

01/20/13

Those of you who are
spouting off about
guns after reading a
100 word wikipedia
article without any
real knowledge about
them, please, stop.
You're as bad as the
nightly news person
explaining
atherosclerosis -
dumbing it down and
embarrassing
yourselves.
An Autoloader is an
object that holds
bullets for a
revolver, allowing
all of them to be
placed in the gun at
once instead of one
at a time. It is not
a feature of the gun
and has no effect on
accuracy or power.
Revolvers and
pistols are not in
and of themselves
more or less
powerful than the
other - the
difference is the
means whereby the
bullet enters the
gun, either from a
turning cartridge or
a "clip" that
spring-loads the
bullet (usually from
the bottom but may
be from the side or,
like the P90 family,
the rear). Simple
geometry dictates
that the revolver
will have a lower
capacity. A dual
action revolver is
semi-automatic
(meaning a single
pull of a trigger
fires one round and
prepares the gun for
the next trigger
pull/round firing)
so it is incorrect
to attempt a
distinction between
pistols vs.
semi-automatics.
Those above who
attempt to lump
semi-automatics and
automatics are
off-base. Automatics
are already illegal
to the general
public except under
very unusual
circumstances. The
AR-15 is not an
automatic and is not
a military weapon.
It is confused with
the M-16 by the
media and
politicians but it
lacks selective
burst/fully auto..

EY

01/20/13

BP, obviously you know your firearms. I do mine too. Your comments
should encourage those who have no knowledge of firearms to stay
away from the gun debate unless they have fully researched &
personally experienced handling of a firearm..

carmen b.s.g. montaner

01/20/13

My, what comments
this problem has
raised!I have never
used or held a gun,
but I do believe
that people who know
how to handle and
keep their guns
safely should be
able to have them.
Probably, one way to
help is not to allow
guns or ammunition
used for the Army or
the police to be
available for anyone
to buy. Collectors
could still buy guns
for their
collection, but no
ammunition should be
available for them.
Hunting guns are
fine, although I am
against the
so-called "sport of
hunting". In this
day and age, it is
not necessary to
hunt animals and
kill them,
especially when they
are duped by some
sort of scents
hunters use to
entice an animal.
This is not
sport!You are not
giving the animal
any sporting chance.
As for the role of
the physician -
physicians have the
duty to be aware of
the paint's needs
and by proper
physical and mental
examination, asking
of questions, etc.,
the patient can be
directed to the
proper consultant as
needed. Family
members, especially
the parents, have to
know what ails their
child, and forget
the idea that that
child has privacy
rights. The privacy
rights of the child
should not preclude
the right of the
parent or guardian
to know what is
wrong with that
child. I agree that
mental health is of
real concern, and
more emphasis should
be placed on having
hospitals and the
powers that be more
emphatic in making
mental health
treatment available
more readily.
Guns are only one of
the weapons that
kill - so are
knives, bats,
poisons, stones,
etc. Maybe, these
latter don't kill so
many people at one
time, but even one
victim is too many!.

j sheets

01/21/13

So sad we have to delve into politics on this site, especially when
it's obvious that very little research was done in order to jump on
the band wagon. This willful ignorance in an effort to prove a
point that doesn't exist has no place on a site dedicated to
science. And, if all of your articles are as poorly done, what does
it say about everything you publish?.

David Cohen, MD

01/21/13

BP (MD)- what one uses to rapidly reload a revolver is called
a "speedloader", not an autoloader. The reason I use the
term "autoloader" rather than either "automatic"
or "semiautomatic"for non-revolving pistols is that while all of
these use part of the energy from the cartridge ignition to cycle
the slide (either by direct recoil or by diverting part of the
expanding gas to push it back, which ejects the spent cartridge
casing ("shell", extract the next cartridge from the magazine and
seats it in the firing chamber. In SOME (not all), the hammer is
also cocked by the slide recoil- these can be
considered "semiautomatic". However, in many handguns (double-
action only, or DAO), the hammer remains uncocked until the trigger
is pulled (similar to a revolver)- this is seen in most
small "pocket" pistols, as well as all Glocks. A revolver doesn't
load the cahamber or eject the spent cartridge, nor is the round
positioned for firing until either the trigger is pulled (double
action), or the hammer iscocked (single action)- this is why
revolvers are inherently more accurate.
BTW- my knowledge of firearms comes from years of experience, not
Wikipedia..

Neuro MD

01/21/13

The article and many of the comments about it show an astounding
lack of knowledge regarding firearms, crime rates and the purpose
of our bill of rights. The Second Amendment to our Constitution
has nothing to do with hunting or personal protection, although
its intent extends to those purposes. Prior to our revolution,
the British attempted to confiscate what were considered to be
modern, "military style" firearms from the colonists. This was of
course opposed on many grounds, most importantly the right that
persons have a last resort option to protect themselves from a
tyrranical government. As it was then, a "well regulated militia"
is composed of armed citizens who unite in times of crisis. The
ammendment states that the right "shall not" be infringed. It does
not state that the right should be limited because of the existence
of any certain type of arm or when a criminal or unstable individual
uses a firearm. As it was intended by the founders of our country,
changing the constitution requires a new amendment, a very high
standard.
The question of a person "needing" a certain type of firearm for
defense of their home or for the purpose of hunting is entirely
irrelevant. Physicians should not be enlisted in a hysterical
political agenda fueled by the media, such as is being pushed by
the Obama administration currently. Likewise, making rash
decisions about gun ownership or other constitutional issues is
even more frightening than the so-called "gun crisis." There is no
emergency regarding firearms in this country, and we continue to
live in a very safe and secure country, partially due to widespread
gun ownership. The U.S. has a murder rate (from all causes) lower
than 42 other countries that have complete and total bans on
civilian gun ownership. Canada has a slightly lower murder rate
that the U.S., but a much higher rate of physical assault and
property crime than the U.S. The rate of violent crimes in general
is over three times higher in Great Britain than in the U.S.
Have no doubt that the current "gun crisis" has much more to do
about making political hay and making the world safer for
politicians than is has about public safety. The true crisis is a
lack of adequate mental health treatment and supervision for
disturbed and potentially dangerous individuals. The broader issue
that physicians and general public should identify is the threat to
our liberties under the constitution and bill of rights. When the
Second Amendment trampled following an media campaign, which one
will fall next? It might be the one that you consider important,
such as being able to speak freely in this (or any) forum..

Norman M Canter MD

01/22/13

Dr. Ray's knowledge
of firearms is
exceeded by his
emotional
instability. Keith
thought that the
ideal load is the 44
special. The 357 and
44 magnum loads are
very difficult for
the usual purposes
of personal and/or
household
protection. The 9mm
load has more muzzle
energy than the 38
special..the most
common revolver
load. the 40 caliber
auto load is far in
excess of both. A
householder..the
average Joe..might
be far better off
with a revolver that
WILL fire than a
semi-automatic that
can jam..and safer
if he purchases a
semi-automatic that
has no safeties and
that either needs to
be cocked with a
slide pull or has a
round in the
chamber...intrinsically
risky without a
safety. I have no
political
connections or
hidden agenda. I am
simply a retired
surgeon who has
owned a variety of
weapons from
revolvers to
Browning Hi-Power
and a variety of
military and
civilian bolt action
rifles. I have
studied and continue
to study the
contribution of
firearms to
historical events in
the military and the
evolution of
firearms from
flintlock to
percussion to the
present time. Unlike
Dr. Ray...my
attachment to
firearms is
scholarly and
historical and
practical and
logical and
independent in
thought rather than
psychiatric or
possibly
commercially biased.
It is unfortunate
that Dr. Ray among
others cannot
disagree without
being disagreeable..

EY

01/22/13

My 2 cents worth on home defense: A shotgun is a better choice for the inexperienced & who do not have time for
target practice. I prefer 9mm double action semi-auto over revolvers. But then again, its according to somebody's
preference, what he/she is comfortable with.
My background: I was a licensed gun collector for over twenty years. I collect military sidearms subspecializing in
WW2 weaponry, but do own & shoot revolver & semiauto 45cal govt semi auto, .380 cal or 9mm short, 357 & 44
magnum. And i do it all for history & the art and the physics of it. I learned all these from reading & experience. Not
through wikipedia.
I want to add, yes it is sad that as healers we come to this point of discussion. But in a way it is a wake up call for
us on our job as professionals... TO HEAL AND EDUCATE!
..

Michael C (MD)

01/22/13

It seems that ultimately one's position on gun control comes down to one's beliefs regarding
presumption of guilt-by-class (i.e. some people possessing guns commit criminal acts using those
guns, therefore no gun owner can be trusted not to do dumb or criminal things), and collective
punishment (because some people cannot be trusted with guns and should not be allowed possession
of such, we are morally justified, obligated even - for the children! - to seize guns from everyone).
The principle is the same if we substitute "semi-automatic weapons" for "guns" in the above. But that
mindset won't stop there. Have a look at the letter by E. Hern et al, BMJ 2005; 330: 1221-1222
("Reducing knife crime: We need to ban the sale of long pointed kitchen knives. " No, NOT from the
BMJ humorous holiday issue.) The interesting and sad cognitive dissonance is that those who believe
in the Inherent Goodness of Every Human are generally those who believe no one can be trusted with
firearms.
Regarding "all you need are single-shot weapons (or magazines of less than X rounds) for self
defense" arguments, consider two recent cases. First, Georgia resident Melinda Herman put 5 of 6
rounds (.38 caliber handgun) point blank into (alleged) home invader Paul Slater, who managed to
walk away under his own power. Second, in Marin County , CA (recently-convicted) burglar Samuel
Cutrufelli was shot several times by homeowner Jay Leone, yet ran out of the house. (Cutrufelli initially
tied up 90-year old Leone. Leone worked his way free and got hold of one of his own pistols,
whereupon Cutrufelli shot Leone in the face. Leone returned fire, wounding Cutrufelli. To top it off,
Cutrufelli sued Leone for causing him great bodily injury among other things.) Unlike TV and the
movies, a single shot does not generally knock a person backwards through a plate-glass window.
Persons who are hopped up on something, or simply enraged, initially may not even notice being hit
with a handgun round.
Additional point regarding the above. Putting 5 of 6 rounds into someone when you are (presumably)
terrified, a la Herman, is a difficult task, even point blank. Imagine what could have happened to
Herman and her two young children had there been several home invaders. Same for the
Leone/Cutrufelli case.
@ Dr Robert Peterson: I know that the plural of anecdote (as the 2 cases above) is not data, but those
are a pretty clear argument that "less lethal" handguns are not going to be effective. As to a
fingerprint or retinal (!) scan to enable a weapon, when you need it to protect your life or those of
your family, you need it right then, not when your device's mobile operating system decides to wake
up and acknowledge you.
@ Dr NM Canter: Please don't bring up the "flintlocks" argument regarding the Second Amendment. I
might equally say that the First Amendment only applies to printed handbills, posters, and
speechifying while physically present because the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned
television or the internet..

RESEARCH

01/22/13

In the final analysis, anything having a potential injurious
effect when found in the "wrong"
hands
can become
a
weapon.
In California, Psychiatrists are mandated to report a patient's
harm of self and
to others
in intake assessments, according to Tarasoff Duty to Warn.
However, if State-wide Physicians take the responsibility of
Tarasoff Duty to report the patient's danger of Self or to Others
in assessing all medical/social
histories, than of course, all discretionary physicians can save
life and
limb...Apparently, the Zeitgeist of our times, ethically/mandates
no longer battling via debates the responsibility issue of who
should be designated reporters, all evaluative medical and
psychological healthcare
personnel can be involved in violence prevention, regardless of
their specialty... Civilization
requires no
less!.

Christopher Staeheli MDJD

01/22/13

Perhaps I am a bit unusual but during my life I have known 4
children/adolescents who died because a failure of adequate gun
safety in the home, none of these involved my being a Physician,
all involved my simply being and American citizen. A boy name Ken
age 16, sat behind me in history class when I was 16. Ken died
cleaning his gun. My first sponsor family in the Navy, their 6 year
old son wnet to get something off a shelf in a closet and
supposedly the family gun stored there fell off the shelf and went
off killing him. My first Office Nurse's 12 year old son went to
his father's home for a visit and suppposedly took the rifle off the
mantel above the fireplace and accidentally shot himself. 3 years
ago a 16 year old boy up the street from where I live was depressed
and struggling in school and came home and took the family rifle
and shot himself. The parents of all of these children might have
benefited from a Doctor discussion on gun safety in the home.
Doctors do talk about public health safety with patients from bay
carriers, to window blinds to cribs and electrical cords and outlets
to bike and ski helmets to seat belts , drinking and driving and
smoking and safe sex. 1 State, Florida blocks this discussion and
7 more states have bills before their legislatures that will make
it reportable to the Medical Licensing board if a doctor raises the
issue of guns in the home. More soldiers are dying by suicide
nearly (70%) by personal gun yet Congress has blocked educating
soldiers and their families about the dangers of easy access to a
gun during times of stress, anger and alcohol use. Doctors'
obligation and freedom to educate about gun safety in the home and
patients' right to that education is a first amendment right that
is what a "free state" under the 2nd amendment means. I agree
strongly with a comment above that Parents' and family members'
obsevation and involvement is key and was clearly absent in many of
these Mass shootings. After the Arizona shooting 2 years ago, my
mother then age 89 was reading of the shooting and looked up from
the newspaper and shook her head and said "we had 2 guns in the
house when you were growing-up, I had then both disabled and hid
them away in the attic, I had 5 sons." I feigned surprise that we
had guns in the house, but the reality is all 5 of us knew where
those guns were and so did all the boys in the neighborhood and, as
a learned a few years ago so did all 10 grandsons. Boys and guns,
like alcohol and a car, are a risk and mothers are the best people
to educate us all on that risk..

The issue is VIOLENCE, period, not GUN-violence, and why members of our culture have become so
disassociated from society that, rather than take out their anger and frustration on the government,
which presents no visible target, so to speak, they look laterally toward anyone they can find to take
the blame. People have become systematically disenfranchised from the voting system, their
communities, the workplace, their families, and then when these "miners
canaries" pop up and display the level of dysfunction, we blame the canaries or their
bird
seed, or some other nonsense. ...........
The feds don't want to tackle THAT problem, because then the finger of blame would point at piss-
poor social managerial skills and then they might not get re-elected. We don't have a discussion on
VIOLENCE because then it would point out how many years in a row that people were bludgeoned to
death with baseball bats or stabbed, and when we compare the NON-gang and NON-crime related
deaths to those with kitchen knives, bats, etc., all of a sudden those gun numbers start looking really
small. ...........
But the issue was never about THE CHILDREN anyway, it was about getting the majority of the
population to fear about their mortality, enough so that they would then, in knee-jerk fashion,
support any legislation to get the guns off the street. That, is EXACTLY the response the feds have
been hoping for in order to implement Agenda21. ...........
If you aren't familiar with Agenda21, it's time to get your keister out of that LazyBoy and find out. The
foundation for it has been in place for about 100 years, and if you think you have problems now .....
just wait till they pull the plug. THAT is why we have the Second Amendment. ...........
If you want to question why we have so much violence, look no further than the Oval office and the
legislature for the last 50 years. As Ron Paul stated on his way out, the American people continually
vote for change within both parties, but the agenda always stays the same. That's because BOTH
presidential candidates are Bilderberg attendees, they are BOTH globalists, and the stated goal of the
globalists was the dissolution of the US Constitution. Again, that's why we have the Second
Amendment..

william ray PhD

01/23/13

Dr. Canter, for someone who would paint himself with the brush of detached intellectual interest, and the
lofty goal of disagreeing without being disagreeable, I believe you're the one who's just thrown the first
_personal_insult_ in our discussion...
That said, as you correctly point out, the .40 S&W is more powerful than the .38 Special or
9mm Parabellum. It also essentially defines the upper limit on cartridges that are useful in an
autoloader (as demonstrated, and largely decided, by the FBI's experience with the 10mm). The .40 S&W
however is less powerful than the .357 magnum, and a _host_ of other revolver cartridges. The .357
effectively defines the _lower_ limit on revolver performance that's considered acceptable for anything
but emergency use, or target shooting. These are the facts. You can find them disagreeable all you like
but you've no room to disagree with them.
.

william ray PhD

01/23/13

BP : Several things.. As with Dr. Cohen, I'm using autoloader to describe the loading mechanism of a
typical semi-automatic pistol (the pistol automatically reloads the chamber after the first round is fired).
Historically, I believe "auto-loading pistol, semi-automatic", would be the correct moniker. "Semi
Automatic" more properly describes whether the firearm uses energy from the first round to completely
prepare itself for firing the second round. The language is a little confusing (and Wikipedia isn't the best
reference) because semi-automatic revolvers exist, but they aren't auto-loading (the user reloads all
chambers, prior to firing). A common double-action revolver however is not typically thought of as
semi-automatic (and here is some of the confusion in the language) because they use energy from the
trigger pull, to position the next chamber.
As to the inherent power differences you're correct in an abstract sense, that the "only thing" that
differentiates revolvers and autoloaders is the loading mechanism, and that therefore there's no
theoretical difference in power or accuracy. However, this is only in the abstract. In practical
construction, revolvers can be made stronger than autoloaders (in part, because of the top strap -
autoloaders are stuck in the world of the Colt Walker, where the barrel is cantilevered over the frame, and
applies a bending moment, and in part because of design limitations on the reloading mechanism for
pistol-length cartridges), and because the cartridges don't pass through the grip (all of this discussion
has been predicated on grip-magazine-fed autoloaders), considerably larger cartridges can be used,
without making the grip unwieldy. You'll see revolvers in .454 Casull on the shelf at every gun store, but
you won't see autoloading pistols in calibers anywhere near that powerful, because common autoloading
designs can neither handle loads of that magnitude, nor could a typical person fit their hand around the
required grip.
Accuracy differences are also considerable, both due to the extra moving parts in an autoloader, and
because the auto-loading cycle inherently abuses the cartridges, resulting in deviations of projectile-to-
bore alignment. Tightening up any autoloader such that it comes close to the accuracy of an "everything
is fixed in position until the chamber is manually advanced" revolver, requires accepting significant
reductions in reliability. Thankfully, for most practical purposes, either are quite good enough..

ChasinRabbits

01/23/13

FAct: the government
wants the medical
profession to spy on
the public. It's not
our job as
HEALTHCARE providers
to inform the
government how many
guns our patients
have, how many
pitbulls or
chihuahua's they
own, how many
bottles of beer are
currently in their
refrigerators, how
many sexual partners
they've had over
their lifetime, if
they are gay,
straight, bisexual,
if they wear seat
belts when they
drive, etc. But the
government seems to
think it is our job
because public
safety is a
component of public
health. For those of
us here who think
it's our
responsibility to
tell the government
these things, you
should get out of
medicine because
your FIRST priority
is the health of
your patient..

Norman M Canter MD

01/23/13

Dr. Ray has
extensively
described many
advantages of
revolvers over
semi-automatic
pistols.
Originally..my
suggestion was that
civilian ownership
should be restricted
to revolvers..so no
conflict there.
Perhaps he would be
kind enough to
explain why
virtually every
police force as well
as our military now
favors
semi-automatic
pistols as the
standard sidearm.I
am aware that there
are revolver loads
that are more
powerful than any
semi-automatic
loads..but few
average citizens are
capable of
controlling them
effectively or would
choose to do so
since they are in
excess of necessary
"stopping power" and
are hazardous in
other than isolated
environments since
they have the power
to penetrate walls
and endanger
neighbors in urban
and suburban
settings. Why does
not the 44 special
represent the lower
limit of acceptable
per Keith..rather
than the .357?.

j sheets

01/24/13

In a conversation of safety, in the revolver vs semi-auto debate,
please consider the fact that "incidental discharges" are inherent
to hammered revolvers. Newer striker fired semi-automatic handguns
such as Glock, cannot be "fired" by dropping, kicking or any other
incidental action. The trigger must be fully depressed, which is a
rather long, two stage motion, to complete the cycle of fire.
Also, with an estimated 60% of attacks involving 2 or more bad
guys, I certainly wouldnt want to count on the old trusty six
shooter to eliminate the danger.
With modern day self-defense ammunition, all caliber of bullets are
deadly. "Knock down power" is a myth and lethality can be gained
using any SD cartridge and proper shot placement..

David Cohen, MD

01/24/13

Dr Canter- there is no question that on a shooting range, where no
one is firing back at you, and you can take all the time you want
to cock, aim and fire a revolver, the revolver is superior due to
its intrinsic better accuracy, as I have described. In addition,
there is no question that a revolver can be made with larger and
more powerful loads than an autoloader, again given the limitations
on the size and weight of a firing chamber and slide; and that
revolvers are almost impossible to jam unless you purposely foul it
up or corrode it.
HOWEVER- as guns are used for defense, and you need to have the gun
with you for it to work, and most municipalities insist on
concealed carry, and bigger guns weigh more, there are practical
limitations to the size of a firearm that one would carry (note
that home defense is best performed with a pump or autoloading
shotgun loaded with shot, both to maximize your ability to hit an
attacker while in a state of fear, and minimize collateral damage
through walls). For ANY given caliber, muzzle energy, barrel
length, capacity, and stopping power (which is the name of the game-
terminating the threat ASA), a revolver will be 1.5 to 2x the
length and weight of an autoloader, and the autoloader will have
more capacity (let me tell you- most people using a handgun under
stress will miss an 8x11" piece of paper at 20 feet more than half
the time). My 357 revolver, with a 6" barrel, has about the same
muzzle energy as my 45 auto, which has a 4.5" barrel; but the 357
is almost a foot long, weighs 51 0z, and holds 6 rounds, while the
45 is 8" long, weighs 31 oz, and holds 8 rounds and has more
stopping power per shot due to the wider bullet tranferring more
energy into the target. Which do you think will be easier to
conceal, easier to carry, and more useful FOR PERSONAL DEFENSE? The
only way to offset the size and weight issue with a revolver is to
cut the barrel down (which will rapidly increase the perceived
recoil- I'd like to se an average sized man, never mind a woman,
try to handle the recoil from a 357 cal 2" snubnosed revolver
(which, BTW will usually only have 5 rounds).
Regarding the jamming issue- 2 things cause a pistol to jam.
Sometimes, it is because the bullet (especially hollow points)
hangs up on the ramp at the back of the barrel- this can easily be
avoided if one practices frequently enough to be reasonably
accurate (as one will determine which ammo fires well out of the
gun). Most of the time, it is because the gun owner has not
followed the basic rules of gun care, which includes cleaning the
firearm after every use. As with gun-using criminals, I refuse to
be hed accountable for the behavior of idiots as well..

Norman M Canter MD

01/25/13

To j
sheets..Yes..for
home protection a
shotgun would be
best. There are
plenty of choices of
gauge and loads. My
second choice would
be 2 44 specials or
38 specials.....that
is..if I lived in
circumstances
requiring home
protection.
Dr. Cohen..Your
choice for you
cannot be disputed
since you are
meticulous and
experienced. But for
the average
Joe..carrying a
weapon.. who will
not necessarily care
for his weapon
optimally..and who
has to rely on his
first shot to
work..carrying a
snub nosed 38
special or 44
special might be the
lesser of 2 evils.
You mention a target
at 20 feet..but the
usual situation
calls for defense at
8 to 10 feet..the
target is
trunk+chest. Some
years ago a family
member thwarted 2
armed hold-up men
with one shot apiece
from a 38 special
Detective Special..

dcarne

01/25/13

One nation under God.... parents bring your kids up with religion
and values... dont buy the violent video games... dont take them to
the "R" rated violent movie when they are only 7 because all of the
other kids saw it... dont put a TV and computer in their room....
limit screen time... DO love and adore your kids, provide for them,
teach them to pray and have faith... discuss mental health concerns
with your pediatrician... if you own a gun, teach them gun safety,
teach them to vote!! teach them to help others first, help put a
stop to bullying, pay attention to your kids emotional needs, Play
outdoors with your kids, go to church on Sunday, say grace before
meals, be grateful, Many of us in this discussion were nurtured and
raised in this way... this is no longer the norm... we need to get
back to good old fashioned family, love thy neigbor, teach your
kids the commandments... Teach them that God is a loving God not a
punishing God... and yes mental health awareness and access to care
is crucial...

william ray PhD

01/28/13

Dr. Canter inquired regarding why the police and military, ubiquitously choose semi-auto pistols over
revolvers, even though revolvers are inherently more accurate, and potentially more powerful. The
answer is that the differences in accuracy and power don't really factor into the effectiveness of the
weapons for police and military uses. The primary requirement from the police and military point of
view, is that the thing be able to put a lot of lead in the general direction of the intended target, as
quickly as possible. The human holding the weapon is far, far less accurate than either the revolver or
autoloader in his (or her) hand, and more shots fired equals a higher probability of a debilitating wound.
The same is true of power (though there are other factors involved here as well - for example supply
logistics - part of the reason for the move to the 9mm was to simplify supply-train logistics so that the
same load could be used in submachineguns and pistols) "lots of energy" is far less important than
hitting the target, and both the police and military have backed away from weapons with more stopping
power, that are harder to control, in favor of easier to carry, faster to shoot, lighter recoil firearms, to
again, increase the probability of a meaningful hit.
The good doctor would perhaps be interested in considering that nowhere have I disagreed with his basic
premise that modern high-capacity semi-auto handguns do more damage than older low-capacity
revolvers. Where I disagreed was in the erroneous demonization of the modern weapons as "too
accurate" and "too powerful". They are neither - however, they're capable of being less-accurate (but
accurate enough) and less powerful (but powerful enough) a whole lot faster and more frequently than a
revolver. This most certainly equates to a higher probability of more holes in the target.
Whether I buy into the conjecture that a law-abiding homeowner should be legally placed at a
disadvantage compared to the bad guys, through some notion that it's morally preferable for the bad guy
to have less holes in him, is a different subject..

william ray PhD

01/28/13

@j sheets : ""incidental discharges" are inherent to hammered revolvers".
No more so with most modern revolvers than with most modern semi-automatics, and no-less so with
older semi-automatic designs than with older revolvers. Modern firearms are overall quite safe, right up
until you pull the trigger. Firearms "accidents" are most often caused by operator error, and only very,
very rarely by a real accident such as a dropped gun discharging..

d mundo

01/28/13

dcarne - while I do not share your views on religion, you sound
like an excellent parent. Just know that even atheists can also
bring up their kids with moral (humanist) values and love and teach
them all the same (non-religious) lessons you promote, including:
"...teach them to vote!! teach them to help others first, help put
a stop to bullying, pay attention to your kids emotional needs,
Play outdoors with your kids... be grateful, Many of us in this
discussion were nurtured and raised in this way... this is no
longer the norm... we need to get back to good old fashioned
family, love thy neighbor...".

JamS

01/31/13

America needs everyone to start taking care and responsibility of their family - those closest to us "see" our changes. Our doctors can help ONLY when they see us! Don't we pay attention to our neighbors and see changes within their lives (if we pay attention). Sure, by reducing the number of bullets an assailant has there might be fewer shots, but all it really takes is one bullet to forever change the lives of those we love - fix the real problem here - appropriate and responsible parenting, helping monitor and caring for others in our communities, and MEDICAL / MENTAL care..

This survey is a poll of those who choose to participate and are, therefore, not valid statistical samples, but rather a snapshot of what your colleagues are thinking.

MedPageToday is a trusted and reliable source for clinical and policy coverage that directly affects the lives and practices of health care professionals.

Physicians and other healthcare professionals may also receive Continuing Medical Education (CME) and Continuing Education (CE) credits at no cost for participating in MedPage Today-hosted educational activities.